Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
Moreover, we endorse the examiner’s view, at page 10 of the
answer, that
...the general teaching of using ECC with a three-dimensional
memory taught by Leedy would have been just as easily been
implemented by an artisan with the ECC functionality off of
the memory device, since that was the conventional
implementation of ECC...even with the ECC circuitry on the
memory device, the data storage system coupled thereto
requires “ECC functionality” to the extent claimed to properly
utilize and process the corrected data.
Appellants do not respond.
Accordingly, since the examiner’s position appears reasonable
to us and we have nothing from appellants convincing us otherwise,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 135 and 139-141,
constituting the Group II claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to Group III, i.e., claim 136, this claim recites
that the ECC functionality is implemented in software in the data
storage system. The examiner relies on Hayashi for such a teaching
(Figure 1, column 3, line 11 to column 4, line 13l; column 7, lines
37-39) and contends that it would have been obvious to implement
the ECC functionality in the Zhang/Johnson/Leedy combination in
software in the data storage system “because this is well known and
provides the system adaptability and updatability” (answer-page 6).
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007